Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 23:16 UTC
Google This. This is what we need. These are the kind of steps from which we all benefit. Google has just announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge: the company promises not to sue any users, distributors, or developers of open source products based on the patents it owns (unless first attacked).
Thread beginning with comment 557088
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyperbole"
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

Let's put your hate of Google by side for a while...

There is one little problem with the question you've asked a few times over your rants

Just one iteration of it:

What specific web developments were stalled immensely by IP related issues?


You want as a proof for you point that we show you how many developments were blocked or even abandoned because of of IP related issues.

+1 for the semantic trick

How do you want us to point namely on products that don't exist because of these issues??? It's like asking the names of kids that aren’t on this planet because of contraception.

The very few public cases we hear about are (probably) an infinitely small portion of those really affected.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Hyperbole
by Alfman on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Hyperbole"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

novad,

Your exactly right about not being able to name those that never materialized due to the state of the patent system.

In the 90's I was doing video editing with consumer software and became disappointed that none of the commodity consumer products on the market offered surround sound encoding for DVDs. So I took it upon myself to see what I could do to bring it to the market myself. I was serious about going through with it until I learned about the reason that other software did not do surround sound encoding: software patents. The encoder patent license fees from Thomson, Dolby, MPEG LA, etc, added up to way more than than the price I felt consumers would bare for my software.

For me, it was the moment I acquired a strong distaste of software patents. Not everyone will experience this kind of personal revelation, but I find it incredibly insincere when anybody like the OP talk as though they don't understand how patents can be harmful.

Edited 2013-03-29 14:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Hyperbole
by John_Smith on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Hyperbole"
John_Smith Member since:
2013-03-29

Wrong thread. Sorry.

Comment deleted

Edited 2013-03-29 14:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:13 in reply to "RE[4]: Hyperbole"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Thank you for sharing your experience Alfman,

You're (With all due respect) "only" one example of how IP has negative effects on innovation.

It's very interesting to hear about those who can't align an army of lawyers to defend (or enforce) their rights. You’re already the second one (Only in this thread) that experienced that. The situation is even worse than I thought :-(

Edited 2013-03-29 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Hyperbole
by Tony Swash on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Hyperbole"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

'hate of Google' really? I bit of cynicism about this patent initiative I grant you but 'hate'? There is nothing factually wrong about the statement that Google is engaged in several legal actions in which it has deployed FRAND standard based patents. That may be a good or bad thing depending on your opinions but it is unquestionably true. Hence my cynicism.

As to your waffle about unknown and hidden damage done to to the tech industry by IP litigation what can one say to vacuous fact free speculation? It's conceivable that IP litigation has done all sorts of hidden damage to the tech industry just as it's conceivable that Elvis is alive and well and in hiding somewhere. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support either proposition. There is however the evidence of many large tech companies making mobile devices and several different mobile operating platforms in play in the market, and I cannot for the life of me see any significant feature or technical aspect of any of those devices or operating systems that is present on one but not the others as a result of IP litigation. Sure occasionally some relatively minor feature, such as 'rubber banding' in the UI say, gets restricted by IP litigation but that hardly amounts to much and it certainly is not 'tearing the industry apart'.

I am not saying that IP litigation is not real or that it does not have real world repercussions it's just that it is so often discussed in a such an overblown, hysterical and doom laden way that rational discourse becomes impossible. IP litigation is a bit of problem, but not a very big one and certainly not one that will decide the fate or direction of the industry or of any remotely major aspect of technical innovation.

This patent initiative by Google will grab some headlines but it is utterly trivial and will change nothing. Google has plenty of IP it will ruthlessly defend just like any other company. All companies tend to think that the IP critical to their operation must be defended but that the IP that is only critical to their competitors should not be defended. So what? That's just the way the real world works and as I say the whole IP litigation road show is just trivia.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Hyperbole"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

'hate of Google' really?


Yes really... If you take only your posts in this thread out of the general context there could be a doubt. But your history on OSnews speaks by itself

There is nothing factually wrong about the statement that Google is engaged in several legal actions in which it has deployed FRAND standard based patents.


You're right but... Where did I state something else, or where did I say Google is a philantropic company? I appreaciate THIS move. I think it's positive START and should be extended to show a real advance with the IP "problem"

It's conceivable that IP litigation has done all sorts of hidden damage to the tech industry just as it's conceivable that Elvis is alive and well and in hiding somewhere. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support either proposition.


I hope this is part of your "cynicism" or you just lost any credibility.


There is however the evidence of many large tech companies making mobile devices and several different mobile operating platforms in play in the market, and I cannot for the life of me see any significant feature or technical aspect of any of those devices or operating systems that is present on one but not the others as a result of IP litigation.


Each of these not so many companies is engaged in numerous legal actions which cost insane amouts of money that are taken from R&D and our own pockets when we pay the "legal tax" on each device. How many smaller companies without an army of lawyers were sued to hell??? Not being able to name them doesn't mean the didn't exist.

it's just that it is so often discussed in a such an overblown, hysterical and doom laden way that rational discourse becomes impossible.


You must admit that your "style" is not exactly the best example for non overblown or hysterical discussion.


IP litigation is a bit of problem, but not a very big one and certainly not one that will decide the fate or direction of the industry or of any remotely major aspect of technical innovation.


Google vs Oracle / Samsung vs Apple / VP8 / Preventive sell Ban of devices in Germany and many many others...

Well... I would say this is a major problem and that it touches major aspects of technical innovation.

This patent initiative by Google ... is utterly trivial...


I don't think it is but what if??? It doesn't hurt; nobody gets sued; nobody must pay anything for it; maybe some can even use these few patents.

With a bit of luck it "could" evolve to something really usefull for innovation

Reply Parent Score: 5